[justshutupandtakeit]

I see no necessary correlation between lifetime appointments and big or small government.

Why should I back up an opinion contrary to an unsubtantiated remark. Why would there be a correlation between veto of state laws and the size of the fedgov? Perhaps you should back up YOUR claim.

I have no interest in your rhetorical speculations but must repeat that there is no hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton which speaks for itself other than his actual plan, the constitution of the United States. And that certainly does not speak for itself, if it did there would not be so many people so confused about its genesis and meaning. His eleven points is a mere outline of ideas which he never submitted as a "plan."

No error, your attempt to attribute something to me is not well disguised. Please indicate where I proposed or supported such appointments for a "central government bureaucracy" Not courts but a cgb. Otherwise, if you are honest, you will retract it.

Hamilton gave a FIVE HOUR speech at the CC. Are you suggesting that a few pages could convey all that was necessary to understand the complexity and depth of his proposals? They are useful for spreading false impressions, however. For example, H. no doubt had little use for state governments and wanted to reduce their sovereignty as Madison indicates but most of his enemies ignore the rest of M.'s remark "On the other hand he confessed he was much discouraged by the amazing extent of Country in expecting the desired blessings from any general sovereignty that could be substituted." Thus, it is FALSE that he proposed getting rid of states.

In posting his plan of government one must realize that much of it was actually adopted and that it never suggested a King or Monarch and that it was completely consistent with his view (and many others) of what a Republic was. On the whole, Madison's report indicates that H had a lot of uncertainty about the future course of action. There is no doubt that during the discussions public and private with M and others H's ideas were as influential as any expressed at the convention. Nor is there any doubt, except among those who hate him, that they were very close to M's as well as Washington and others.

I never said Madison's remarks "don't count" they are very useful but are just a short summary of H's comments. However, H's plan as stated there (it is accurate because M had H review the remarks regarding the "plan" for accuracy as far as they went) had elements which were actually incorporated in the Constitution. That became H's "plan."

You seem anxious to forget that at the time he spoke there were two other plans, elements of both which were also incorporated into the constitution. But I know the Hamilton-haters love beating this dead horse. Of course, in order to do this they have to ignore much of what M reported he said as well as virtually H's entire life and works. "Having made these observations he would read to the Committee a sketch of a plan which he shd. prefer to either of those under consideration. He was aware that it went beyond the ideas of most members....He did not mean to offer the paper he has sketched as a proposition to the Committee. IT WAS MEANT ONLY TO GIVE A MORE CORRECT VIEW OF HIS IDEAS, and to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R in the proper stages of its future discussion."

My "friends" knowledge of American history I will take over yours anyday.

H's comments on the English government lend themselves to misrepresentation and distortion by the enemies of constitutional government, it is true. However, it is a simple matter for those with a regard to the truth to put them in context. H's regard for the English constitution and govt. was entirely because of his belief that it was "the only govt. in the world 'which unites public strength with idividual security.'" You might recall that our revolution was not against the English constitution but precisely because the colonists were denied the protection of that constitution. What he said was ENTIRELY TRUE at that time.

The constitution did not create a confederacy but a Union. Madison's papers in the Federalist do not indicate anything different and, in fact, he never stated anything other than after states joined the new government they lost forever their right to unilaterally leave. You might want to review his letters to H at the time of the NY CC wherein he told H not to accept conditional ratification for precisely that reason. NONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A RIGHT OF SECESSION.

H's discussion points wrt his "plan" are hardly discussed at length and I have never denied that he wanted appointments to be in effect for as long as the recipients lived or desired them OR WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR. Anyone stating he wanted life time appointments with no ability to recall is a Liar.
H's ultimate "plan" was the Constitution of the United States of America. That same plan which the Traitors you defend would destroy.

[Who is John Galt?]

Why should I back up an opinion contrary to an unsubtantiated remark. Why would there be a correlation between veto of state laws and the size of the fedgov? Perhaps you should back up YOUR claim.

Obviously, you are completely unaware of one of the most elementary aspects of representative politics. If you have one vote, and the electorate consists of you and only four other voters, you possess 20% of the voting ‘power.’ (Congratulations! ;>) Unless you are telling us that there are more voters in your State than there are in this federal union, by definition you possess a more powerful voice at the State level than at the federal. Now, if you wish to believe that a federal veto of the expression of your political will at the State level somehow constitutes small government, you are welcome to your delusions.

: ...there is no hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton which speaks for itself other than his actual plan, the constitution of the United States.

LOL! The Constitution that was adopted established a government that bears little semblance to the form of government proposed by Mr. Hamilton. To suggest that our Constitution is Hamilton’s “actual plan” amounts to blatant historical revisionism.

And that certainly does not speak for itself, if it did there would not be so many people so confused about its genesis and meaning. His eleven points is a mere outline of ideas which he never submitted as a "plan."

Actually, it is you who are confused. Let’s skip ahead a few lines and see how YOU refer to “[h]is eleven points:”

”In posting his plan of government one must realize that much of it was actually adopted and that it never suggested a King or Monarch...”

Looks like your “error” – again.

No error, your attempt to attribute something to me is not well disguised. Please indicate where I proposed or supported such appointments for a "central government bureaucracy"

Allow me to refresh your memory:

”THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context...”

You may believe that an executive branch serving for life, a judicial branch serving for life, and half of a legislative branch serving for life, with veto power over all State laws, will not constitute a “central government bureaucracy,” but most rational adults will disagree with you. Alternatively, you are free to suggest that Mr. Hamilton suggested no such form of government.

Hamilton gave a FIVE HOUR speech at the CC. Are you suggesting that a few pages could convey all that was necessary to understand the complexity and depth of his proposals? They are useful for spreading false impressions, however.

LOL! I am the one citing the existing records from the convention. You cite nothing but your opinion – which insofar as it contradicts those records is most certainly “useful for spreading false impressions”...

;>)

Thus, it is FALSE that he proposed getting rid of states.

And, where, precisely, did I suggest that Mr. Hamilton “proposed getting rid of states?” Hmm?

In posting his plan of government [thank you for proving my point!] one must realize that much of it was actually adopted...

Actually, little of Hamilton’s plan was adopted. The Constitution established a new federal – not national – government. And only the judiciary serves for life – in case you had not noticed.

There is no doubt that during the discussions public and private with M and others H's ideas were as influential as any expressed at the convention.

That, of course, is why they rejected his plan nearly in toto.

Nor is there any doubt, except among those who hate him, that they were very close to M's as well as Washington and others.

Oh, you betcha...

;>)

...H's plan as stated there (it is accurate because M had H review the remarks regarding the "plan" for accuracy as far as they went) had elements which were actually incorporated in the Constitution. That became H's "plan."

So now you are saying “H” had two plans? How nice. (Oh, and thanks for proving my point yet again... ;>)

My "friends" knowledge of American history I will take over yours anyday.

Of course – your “friends” so called “knowledge” more closely complies with your revisionist viewpoint.

The constitution did not create a confederacy but a Union.

Strange – Mr. Washington referred to the new government, in writing, as a confederacy.

Madison's papers in the Federalist do not indicate anything different and, in fact, he never stated anything other than after states joined the new government they lost forever their right to unilaterally leave.

Revisionist hogwash. You are obviously unfamiliar with Mr. Madison’s Virginia Resolutions and Report on the Virginia Resolutions. And his private correspondence indicates that he believed the individual States were free to retire from the union in the face of federal oppression: unless you are suggesting that only the federal government may determine when it is oppressing the States (are you? ;>), that amounts to ‘unilateral’ secession.

NONE OF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED IN A RIGHT OF SECESSION.

ROTFLMAO!!! You revisionists are certainly entertaining! Read the Articles of Confederation sometime, my friend: they state, in writing, that unanimous agreement was required to change those articles. Now read the Constitution: it was established between the ratifying States upon the ratification of the ninth – not thirteenth – State. Simply put, the Constitution was established by the secession of the ratifying States from the so-called “perpetual union” established under the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, when the States ratified the Constitution, several explicitly reserved the right of secession. And following the ratification of the Constitution, the most respected legal references of the day (including Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803) recognized the right of State secession. Jefferson and Madison certainly recognized the right of the individual States to make such determinations. Shall I quote Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of 1825? Either you are ignorant, or you are a complete bullsh!t artist.

Anyone stating he wanted life time appointments with no ability to recall is a Liar.

How nice: a ‘strawman’ argument. I never suggested that his plan included “no ability to recall”...

H's ultimate "plan" was the Constitution of the United States of America.

Really? Let’s see some real documentation: remember, “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention” don’t count...

That same plan which the Traitors you defend would destroy.

LOL! Which specific clause of the Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm? Please be specific. While you are looking, please feel free to explain to us all why the Tenth Amendment doesn’t apply.

(One thing I’ve noticed about historical revisionists: they’re amazingly ignorant of the Constitution, and mighty free with the term ‘traitor’... ;>)